Summary
What It Is
Involuntary separation is when a worker’s membership in the Workerle is terminated by the Workerle rather than by the worker. It occurs as a result of disciplinary action, re-organizations, layoffs, etc.
What Problem It Solves
Involuntary separations occur because of worker behavior, changing business needs, and adverse economic times. When due process of law and democratic processes are used, the adverse consequences on the remaining workers are reduced.
How It Works
The processes for involuntary separation are set forth in the Constitution and in the laws of the Workerle. They involve the various legislative bodies of the Workerle, the Workerle Courts, Grand Juries, and voting by workers. These allow workers to participate and to be fully informed. They preserve worker rights through due process of law including trial by jury.
Discussion
There are a few situations where workers will need to be involuntarily separated from the Workerle. The goal of Liberty Workforce in this area is fourfold: to create a clear process for it in law, to allow those affected a voice in that process, to separate the initiator of the process from the executor of it as a check and balance, and to expand its use beyond management to others who need it. Each situation requiring an involuntary separation is described below.
Disciplinary Action against a Worker
In a Workerle, there will exist many of the same reasons to terminate an individual worker as in any business. For example, a worker broke a Workerle law which has separation as its consequence. Another example would be the worker whose performance is so sub-optimal that he costs the Workerle more than it gains from his contribution. The process for termination in the Workerle is different, however.
It should be again noted that every prudent step should be taken to help the worker succeed before seeking to terminate him. Separation is a last resort.
The separation of a worker from the Workerle parallels conceptually much of the judicial process in criminal courts. The process works as follows:
File Complaints to the Judge
The process begins with a complaint being filed with the Judge. For the Judge to take action when a complaint is filed by workers, there must be at least two workers who either sign one complaint or who file separate complaints. The Judge will also act if the Unit Leader alone files a complaint.
The complaint states what the offending worker did or did not do and what actions others have taken to remedy the situation.
If the complaint requirements are met, the Judge takes the next action which is to convene a Grand Jury.
The Judge Convenes a Grand Jury
The purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine if an indictment should be made against a worker. It stands as a protection against frivolous and unfounded charges. The Grand Jury investigates the complaint to verify its validity. It can call witnesses and access business records. If the Grand Jury thinks there is enough evidence to justify a trial, it returns an indictment against the worker. The Unit Leader informs the worker of the indictment.
The proceedings of the Grand Jury are sealed (i.e., secret). Witnesses are not under any prohibition, but the jurors cannot share anything about the proceedings.
Conduct Trial Using a Jury of Peers
Once an indictment is made, the worker is tried in court. The Judge presides over the Court. A jury of peers (i.e., other workers) is seated and hears the proceedings. The worker accused can attend the trial. He is entitled to counsel and witnesses in his defense. The Unit Leader either prosecutes the case or assigns someone to do so in his place. If a supermajority (five out of six) of the jurors agrees with the charges, then the Judge calls for the execution of the consequences stated in the Workerle laws.
Dysfunctional Worker in a Work Group
All workers are members of a Work Group. If a worker is causing problems in the Work Group or not performing and if these issues cannot be resolved, the other members of the Work Group can easily remove that worker from the Work Group by voting without discussion or debate. This process is described in the article on Work Group Governance. This is almost a separation from the Workerle. If a worker who has been removed from a Work Group cannot find another job in the Workerle, then he is put on trial to be removed from the Workerle.
The Work Group does not hold a trial to remove the worker. They just take a vote. That is why the subsequent step of having a trial is necessary. The worker has a right to defend himself before a jury of peers.
In every organization, there is the potential for “deadwood” and “free rider” workers. These workers take advantage of the system to keep their jobs while performing little or no useful work. In the Liberty Workforce, there is even a greater probability that these tendencies will appear because the firing process is so onerous. And more than other business forms, the presence of these workers could cause morale issues. As so much responsibility is placed on the Work Group (e.g., results determine compensation), it will cause great unrest in the Work Group to saddle them with the burden of dysfunctional workers. Also, the dysfunctional worker’s low productivity affects the compensation of the workers who are producing. To address these morale issues, workers are given the power to nearly fire a fellow worker at will.
Not only does this solve the morale problem, it brings advantages to the business. First, workers are better suited to keep the business free of deadwood and free riders than managers. Peers usually know who is performing well better than managers. Second, it takes advantage of peer group pressure to encourage high performance. Knowing that peers know how one is doing and that these same peers can easily get one fired will be a powerful motivator for workers to perform to group expectations.
New Hire Does Not Work Out
Sometimes, the performance or fit of a newly hired worker is far under what was expected. When this happens, some effort should be expended to rectify this as an experiment. If the results of these efforts predict that acceptable resolution of the shortfall will not be accomplished within a reasonable time and expenditure of resources, the worker should be separated.
The process for separation of a new hire is the same process as for removing a Work Group Member. The difference is that there is no Court proceeding following the Work Group vote. The vote of the Work Group alone results in separation without recourse.
This process should only be used in extreme cases. It is only available for a short while (e.g., six months) after the new hire starts work. After this period, separation must occur through one of the other procedures given in this article.
Re-organizations
A President, Principal Federal Officer, or Unit Leader (newly appointed or old) may wish to take his stewardship in new directions. Some executives do this by firing existing workers and placing trusted friends in their places. This is not acceptable. But, neither is it acceptable to bind the hands of the executive with existing workers who will not change or are not capable of accomplishing the goals of the executive.
The steps for reorganization are:
- Communicate the new vision and plan to the workers generally. Discuss the changes each individual needs to make one-on one. The workers can accept, propose modifications, or reject the new executive’s plan.
- If the executive is unsatisfied with the results of Step 1, then he can request the Judge to convene a Grand Jury. The executive will propose to the Grand Jury the re-organization plan which includes the firing of workers and his reasoning for it. The Grand Jury can investigate the circumstances and call witnesses, if needed. They can negotiate with the executive to modify the plan. They will then approve the executive’s plan with or without modifications or they will reject the plan. If the plan is rejected, that is the end of the matter. There is no appeal.
- If the executive’s re-organization plan is approved by the Grand Jury, then the workers affected will be released from their duties and given a time period (90 days??) to find a new job within the Workerle. The Workerle assists with the job search. If at the end of the period the workers have not found a new job, then their case will be heard before the Court to determine whether they should be separated.
Rogue Work Groups and Units
Sometimes, whole organizations within a business can deviate from acceptable practices and performance. In a normal business, management can direct such organizations to reform. The directions carry more weight because implicit in them is the consequence of being fired for failure to comply. However, in the Liberty Workforce model, as management cannot fire any worker, there is less weight to their requests for change. Furthermore, great autonomy is given Work Groups and Units. Management is not of the “command and control” type, but of the mentor type. Consequently, a new process handles Work Groups and Units that have gone rogue.
For a rogue Work Group, the Unit Legislature may dissolve the Work Group with the approval of the Unit Leader. This requires the vote of at least three-fourths of the Legislators. Legislators who are members of the Work Group are disqualified from voting. The three-fourths requirement would be based on the number of the remaining Legislators. Once the Work Group is dissolved, the workers will have a period of time (30 days??) to find a position in another Work Group. If this does not occur during the time given, the worker would be tried in Court by a jury for separation from the Workerle.
For a rogue Unit, the process is very similar except that it involves the Congress and the President.
It is very unlikely that these procedures would ever be needed. Nonetheless, they preserve the implicit threat to workers of losing their jobs if they do not cooperate with the larger organization.
Layoffs and Plant Closings
In times of economic uncertainty, whether general or confined to the business, the potential of a lay-off or plant closing wears on the workers. It drains strength from them that could better be employed in creating success for the business. The threat is discussed amongst the workers resulting in lost productivity. Workers feel impotent in the face of it. This attitude seeps into other places. Rather than believe they can solve business challenges, they feel hopeless about them, too. As a result, these challenges may not be met like they would in better times. The goal of Liberty Workforce is to remove most of this burden from the workers for the good of the worker and the business.
Lay-offs and plant closings are sometimes needed. Liberty Workforce provides for them, but reduces the probability that they will be needed. It also gives the workers a voice in determining whether they will happen and if so, how it will be done. Having a voice requires openness of information about the layoff or plant closing. These three factors (reduced probability, increased control, and transparency) will reduce most of the burden on workers. It will help them remain positive and fully engaged in the business during economic stress.
Layoffs
The probability of layoffs is reduced because the workers’ compensation is variable. The urgency to lay off workers to reduce costs in order to preserve owners’ equity when the business is losing money does not exist. The Ownerle cannot lose money due to an economic downturn. What happens in a downturn is that the workers receive an automatic reduction in compensation.
To begin the process to lay off workers, Congress passes a bill. This bill does not determine who will be laid off, but does specify the number of workers. To become law (i.e. effective), the President must sign the bill and it must be approved by at least three-fourths of the workers. If the bill is not so approved by the workers, the Congress may reconsider the bill. If, upon reconsidering it, three-fourths of the Worker Senate and three-fourths of the Board of Directors agree, the bill becomes law. Once the bill becomes law, the Congress must pass another bill defining who is laid off or giving a procedure to determine who will be laid off. This bill requires only a simple majority to pass and need only be approved by the President. This process increases workers’ control of layoffs.
Breaking the process into these two steps is necessary. A one step process would unfairly burden those workers not being laid off with the knowledge of who was at risk when they went to vote. It could be very emotionally conflicting to force them to choose between laying off a friend and getting less money in your paycheck. Furthermore, if this knowledge was determined in advance, the worker vote would almost be moot: those workers being laid off would likely vote against it, but they would be easily outvoted by those workers who were not, but whose compensation would be increased by the layoff.
During the preliminary hearings about a layoff, and later, during the debates in Congress, there will be much research and discussion of alternatives, impacts, and so forth. Workers will be expressing their views to their Legislators. This transparency gives workers information which will help them effectively deal with the economic realities.
Plant Closings
The process for a plant closing is similar to a layoff. It originates as a bill in Congress and it requires approval from certain workers as well as the President. If workers will be laid off as a result, then it requires the approval of three-fourths of the workers in the plant. If the workers will still have similar jobs elsewhere in the Workerle, then it requires approval by a simple majority in the Unit Legislature (or Legislatures, if more than one) in the plant. As with layoffs, if the bill is not approved by the workers or Unit Legislatures, as the case may be, the Congress may reconsider the bill. If three-fourths of the Worker Senate and three-fourths of the Board of Directors agree, the reconsidered bill becomes law.